descartes Once an individual realizes that heshe subsists as a thinking thing


Course Instructor




Once an individual realizes that he/she subsists as a thinking thing, one commences the search to unravel more incontrovertible veracities. With regard to the feedback of the research conducted the individual remains positive about the probability of developing a method of definite understanding. The only twist to this method is that the aforementioned perceptions are undeniable so long as one works on them. Doubt shall creep into the perception as soon as one falls out of cognizance. As a result the above method of understanding is compromised. This is the point where Descartes intervenes to offer a long lasting solution to the aforementioned concern that may present itself to an individual. Descartes sees the bigger picture and brings God as the ultimate solution to the irrefutability of the system of knowledge. Descartes asserts that God is the source of one’s vibrant perception and in addition to this He is always perfect. Ultimately, Descartes mission is to prove that God exists.

In his argument of proving God’s existence Descartes proposes two arguments to back up his notion. His first argument is based on the ontological argument of God’s subsistence. Under the ontological argument Descartes highlights the following issues; the notion of all individuals’ God is that of a perfect being; secondly, it is more impeccable to subsist than non-existence; finally, due to the two arguments mentioned above God must be in existence (Cahn, 85).

The other argument adopted by Descartes in proving God’s existence appears to be more complex than the one mentioned above. The second argument has an underpinning that relies on the peculiarity between two authenticities. The first sort of reality is formal reality. The aforementioned authenticity represents the reality that all possess by the virtue of its subsistence. This form of reality covers three grades namely mode, finite and infinite. Ultimately, God is the only being that subsists with infinite formal authenticity. All substances that surround people possess finite formal authenticity. The final grade which is mode has modal formal authenticity. Any form of idea that one possesses falls under this grade of formal reality. However, ideas possess a different kind of reality which is unique to them. Ideas can be referred to as objective reality when they are equated to the objects they epitomize. Due to the aforementioned fact objective reality exhibits three grades similar to the one in formal authenticity.

The argument proposed by Descartes commences with the controversial assertion that every individual has a notion of God as an infinite being. Descartes is of the opinion that no individual can fail to have this notion since it is innate. Since one’s idea of God is that of an infinite being, there must exist a correlating infinite objective reality. Subsequently, Descartes asserts that something cannot originate from nothing or simply referred to as the innate rational principle. With strict reliance to the aforementioned principle he is able to come up with two distinct fundamental principles. The first fundamental principle is the existence of a reality in a cause and in an effect equally while the second principle is the subsistence of formal authenticity in a cause of an idea and the objective reality of the idea equally. With the presence of an infinite objective reality namely the idea of God, he arrives at an intelligent conclusion that there must exist a being that possesses infinite formal authenticity who acts as the source of the idea.

With regard to Descartes philosophy, the objections that arise are the application of the evidence of God in order to corroborate pure perceptions. The objection in this domain is coined as the ‘Cartesian Circle’ which depicts the notion that Descartes uses God to ascertain the truth of pure perceptions and vice versa. The critics question the viability of the adoption of clear and pure perceptions to ascertain God’s existence. They claim that the use of clear perceptions to validate the existence of God is circular reasoning. However, when I went through Descartes work I found that he did not adopt circular reasoning in his efforts to prove God’s existence. With regard to his work, one finds that the existence of God does not prove that pure perceptions are indeed true. People do not require any evidence to prove the veracity of pure perceptions. Actually, pure perception in a thing is portrayed through actual attendance to it. The existence of God only comes into play to ensure that doubt does not compromise the system of understanding. It is only after this that Descartes proves the existence of God through pure perception. Once the existence of God is proved the thing that changes is that one does not have to keep attending to the perceptions to maintain its veracity (Hume, 109).

The fault that I found in Descartes philosophy which tries to explain the existence of God is its ontological argument. With regard to the ontological argument, one has to possess strong belief that the entire events of the world are correlated to a chain of logical explanations which are accessible. If an explanation lacks an ontological argument it may transform into an infinite regress thus having no end to it (Adler & Catherine, 63). As a result one has to ensure that the explanation comes to a successful conclusion through adopting a certain level of authenticity that causes itself, something which is its specific elucidation. In this instance the sole conceivable possibility for a being that is its own elucidation is God. Ultimately, the ontological argument has to be effective in order for God to be his own explanation in Descartes philosophy. The rationale behind the vanity of Descartes ontological argument is that he existence as any other property. Evidently this depiction is deceiving since it is illogical to assert that God does not possess existence. Once the aforementioned assertion is made God cannot have properties; in simple terms he is non-existent. Descartes failed to note this fundamental difference between existence and other forms of property that one can possess.

The other problem that I noted on Descartes philosophy is his causal argument. I specifically questioned his claim of a special form of reality which he coined as objective reality. The concern under this domain is his rationale for assuming that authenticity came in grades which are metaphysically laden. In addition to this Descartes fundamental claim in his causal principle was discernibly fabricated. It is evident that not every one of us has an innate idea of God as being of infinite perfection thus the existence of pagans and atheists. The only time people have the idea of God as a being of infinite perfection is when that particular group (of people) are nurtured in a culture where the notion of a sole flawless supreme being is ubiquitous.

Works Cited

Adler, Jonathan E, and Catherine Z. Elgin. Philosophical Inquiry: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co, 2007.Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. , 2012.

Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Boston:, 2010.